Having looked in more detail at the #SWICG document. That's not the 3-stage process I advocated for at the time, and I agree with you: It will not work. Such top-down formal ceremony just does not fit a grassroots ecosystem.
Generally speaking I don't think #W3C as a standardization body is up to the task of being a good host for the ActivityPub specification. It is a) not organized for our environment, and b) only takes care of the technical aspects. Our social media landscape has a huge social component, and this is wholly underrepresented in our app-centric fediverse, where people are merely "users" and #FOSS culture is the only driving force.
Today I think SWICG should focus on the 'Protocol implementer' stakeholder: How can they offer compliant #ActivityPub protocol implementations.
Then #FEP can focus on the 'Solution developer', relieved from the plumbing: What interoperable designs do they use to serve the needs of participants on the social network.
Social coding commons
npub12s…t6w0r
2026-08-30 16:56:30 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…8an9
Author Public Key
npub12sqwvghpdpge25cuy8d9aemp2srxlp50ytlhv33nakzs29hrw3wqct6w0rSeen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2026-08-30 16:56:30 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "f6bb7b75ac9e1b41ee3844698db186d9cb96cbcde9f8d6d7de5cf7654d9819bd",
"pubkey": "5400e622e1685195531c21da5ee76154066f868f22ff764633ed850516e3745c",
"created_at": 1788108990,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"2911edc2e02b1ab6331ba9e0c73e38d8b2ee66b2e234ac7d73fe6f1278f6b8a9"
],
[
"p",
"5400e622e1685195531c21da5ee76154066f868f22ff764633ed850516e3745c"
],
[
"p",
"f26f99216e0d5156002c93e162a0dbb17f66df287f5ea38f30be34bc5f8b58b7"
],
[
"e",
"ce8410ea85196b1db9d36e89f038b551edc0c7633075b10943321f4b629da717",
"",
"root",
"2911edc2e02b1ab6331ba9e0c73e38d8b2ee66b2e234ac7d73fe6f1278f6b8a9"
],
[
"t",
"w3c"
],
[
"t",
"activitypub"
],
[
"t",
"foss"
],
[
"t",
"fep"
],
[
"p",
"63927567ad826353d64ac58022a333f08bf394277b444d2fac6110afae81ac90"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.coop/@smallcircles/117185510811483948",
"web"
],
[
"e",
"802698e8dc78fed8e66dc5d5f49661a0be3ad8c456cdf9526f355be45fed9bd5",
"",
"reply",
"2911edc2e02b1ab6331ba9e0c73e38d8b2ee66b2e234ac7d73fe6f1278f6b8a9"
],
[
"t",
"swicg"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/117185510811483948",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/117185510811483948",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Having looked in more detail at the #SWICG document. That's not the 3-stage process I advocated for at the time, and I agree with you: It will not work. Such top-down formal ceremony just does not fit a grassroots ecosystem.\n\nGenerally speaking I don't think #W3C as a standardization body is up to the task of being a good host for the ActivityPub specification. It is a) not organized for our environment, and b) only takes care of the technical aspects. Our social media landscape has a huge social component, and this is wholly underrepresented in our app-centric fediverse, where people are merely \"users\" and #FOSS culture is the only driving force.\n\nToday I think SWICG should focus on the 'Protocol implementer' stakeholder: How can they offer compliant #ActivityPub protocol implementations.\n\nThen #FEP can focus on the 'Solution developer', relieved from the plumbing: What interoperable designs do they use to serve the needs of participants on the social network.",
"sig": "f281647a09a46dbdf31b9ffb2fb63b14234d33a24e2fb4354e488687036b11b437c29e8bb8b607e94bfbff5206e664af53ae3c808a7c03de7d17c8c62c6c0903"
}